PDA

View Full Version : (x) ubuntu server, 64bit



gian
2007-11-14, 13:37
Hello All,

when I reinstalled Ubuntu 7.10, I went for the generic 32-bit kernel without much thinking.

Now, considering that my box is a dedicated samba/slim server, I would like to go back from scratch with a server kernel, 64 bit.

I have been playing around with various versions in my office, and I think that a server kernel with xubuntu-desktop is the best compromise between speed and user interface.

Question is, does the Debian installer like 64bit libraries?
or should I stay with the 32bit server kernel?

Suggestions much appreciated.

thanks for your time,
-Gian

Mitch Harding
2007-11-14, 13:44
I have my Squeezecenter set up on Ubuntu 7.10 desktop x64, and it
works fine. I've never tried the server version, but 64-bit by itself
didn't break me.

On Nov 14, 2007 2:37 PM, gian
<gian.3022gn1195072801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> when I reinstalled Ubuntu 7.10, I went for the generic 32-bit kernel
> without much thinking.
>
> Now, considering that my box is a dedicated samba/slim server, I would
> like to go back from scratch with a server kernel, 64 bit.
>
> I have been playing around with various versions in my office, and I
> think that a server kernel with xubuntu-desktop is the best compromise
> between speed and user interface.
>
> Question is, does the Debian installer like 64bit libraries?
> or should I stay with the 32bit server kernel?
>
> Suggestions much appreciated.
>
> thanks for your time,
> -Gian
>
>
> --
> gian
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> gian's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6702
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=40256
>
>

Mark Lanctot
2007-11-14, 14:13
Yeah, SS runs fine on Ubuntu 7.10 64-bit Desktop here.

But I'll level with ya, I'm not sure what speed advantage you'd gain. You just end up using more memory. Apparently 64-bit is only useful for programs designed to take advantage of 64-bit, and even then, only for very computationally-intensive programs. I believe SS is more database - I/O intensive.

I've never had 32-bit installed on this hardware so it's hard for me to tell whether things are faster or not, and this hardware is quite fast, so there's nothing obviously slow. But when I had 512 MB of memory things were tight for sure. With 2 GB now there's lots of free memory, I'm rarely over 1 GB.

However with the GUI-less server version you would avoid the biggest problem with 64-bit - no Flash in web browsers.

It's worth a try, and you shouldn't experience any more issues than you would with a 32-bit install. It's just that you may use more memory for no real reason, memory which SS may be able to use.

Mark Miksis
2007-11-14, 14:22
It's worth noting that 7.0 includes the perl module binaries for x86_64, but 6.5.x doesn't. If you use 6.5, you'll have to build them with build-perl-modules.pl.

pfarrell
2007-11-14, 14:25
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> But I'll level with ya, I'm not sure what speed advantage you'd gain.
> You just end up using more memory. Apparently 64-bit is only useful
> for programs designed to take advantage of 64-bit, and even then, only
> for very computationally-intensive programs. I believe SS is more
> database - I/O intensive.

On desktop/home servers, I have tried a couple of AMD64 distros on
assorted 64bit machines, and always have gone back to the 32 bit release.

The real advantage of 64 bit kernels is when you have a serious box. For
work, I am configuring a quad AMD64 CPU, 12GB ram, terabyte disk server.
With 32 bits, you can't address more than 4GB in theory, and typically
more than 3GB is wasted. So to use 12GB of ram, I need 64 bit.

I would not think it is really 'computationally intensive' as very
little is CPU bound, Memory and IO are the real world constraints unless
you care doing Folding-at-home.

Pat

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

Mark Lanctot
2007-11-14, 14:28
It's worth noting that 7.0 includes the perl module binaries for x86_64, but 6.5.x doesn't. If you use 6.5, you'll have to build them with build-perl-modules.pl.

Hmm? I'm running 6.5.4 here and I never had to use build-perl-modules.pl?

I've also run 6.5.1 on this, same situation?

However I have installed some 32-bit libraries which may help things. See http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=606596, I believe I installed the IA32 libraries.

Mark Miksis
2007-11-14, 14:40
Hmm? I'm running 6.5.4 here and I never had to use build-perl-modules.pl?

Maybe you have all the necessary modules installed from deb packages?

gian
2007-11-15, 05:53
thank you so much all of you for your interesting comments.
-Gian

CatBus
2007-11-15, 10:42
FWIW I run 64-bit Linux (not *ubuntu tho) on both my server and laptop and have experienced no problems due to 64-bitness. Most distros include whatever mojo is needed to make proprietary browser plugins work out-of-the-box.

The more proprietary software you need, I imagine the more likely you are to run into problems. Things like proprietary kernel modules for video cards, winmodems, scanner firmware, and the like.

A 64-bit OS can make use of >4GB addressable memory--and addressable memory is physical memory plus virtual memory. The ratio can vary and is partially dependent on some kernel parameters, but I believe there was a kerneltrap thread where Linus said that 32-bit Linux started to get memory-starved at anything above 1GB physical RAM, due to lack of addressable virtual memory beyond that. If you're searching, I think it was the same thread where Linus said Linux probably supports PAE better than any other OS, but the technology is basically crap.

Whether that's true or not, I use a 64-bit OS on machines with less than 4GB RAM without any noticeable performance hit, mostly because I want to be able to use the same binaries on all of my machines.